Twitter Api45 MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose pagination behavior (critical given the cursor parameter), authentication requirements, error handling for deleted tweets, or whether results are real-time vs cached. 'Get' implies read-only but lacks specifics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately brief with a single sentence, but the duplicate 'of' ('list of of') is a typo that reduces professionalism and clarity slightly. Information is front-loaded appropriately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits critical context about pagination behavior implied by the cursor parameter and provides no hint about return value structure (e.g., user objects, count limits).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'the tweet' which loosely maps to the 'id' parameter, but adds no semantic context for 'cursor' (e.g., explaining pagination) or parameter relationships beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves users who retweeted a tweet using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'list of users'. However, it contains a typo ('list of of') and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'check_retweet' which likely verifies specific retweets rather than listing all.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus siblings (like check_retweet), pagination strategies with the cursor parameter, or rate limit considerations. The description states only what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.